About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
in this race and our thoughts are with all of them today. the department of defense is prepared to respond quickly to any response for additional support from domestic law enforcement agencies. i will continue to consult closely with d.o.d. senior leaders on how we can best support the government's response and investigation. and chairman dempsey may have additional comments regarding this event as well. mr. chairman, i will now turn to my opening statement for this hearing. this year's 2014 budget request for the department of defense is -- as congressman lowey noted, a budget that was put together over many months. an enterprise as large as the department of defense, $600 billion is not collaborated with or on or numbers or budgets instructed in a manner of two or three months. and as we proceed in this hearing this morning, mr. chairman, we will get into some of the specifics of the budget and why some of the decisions were made on the basis of what the numbers will reveal and our responsibilities. allow me to express my appreciation to this subcommittee for its continued support of our
array to include a sophisticated air defense capability, depending who is operating in. a no-fly zone would not be without cost. >> even though the best testified he could with cruise missiles and within the patriot missiles in the right place is that we could establish a no-fly zone. >> patriot missiles i'm getting out of my league. that is essentially a point weapon. the theory is you could position patriot missiles outside of syria and somehow provide security outside the zone, given the nature of the pastry about then, which is not an area of a project or would be tough. >> and what's fascinating is now you are saying instead of the joint chiefs of staff that it has deteriorated so much that you now have questions whether we should supply weapto rebels are not, which the argues we shod have supplied them back ommended coing to published reports well heta o state, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs f staff. it's remarkable. see you in the administration figure and say we don't know where the weapons are going. maybe if we help the people of writing from the beginning befor
defense ministers have already begun consideration of the size and mission for a post-2014 force in afghanistan. one factor that will influence that decision is the size and capacity of the afghan security forces. in this regard, the recent decision by nato defense ministers to support maintaining the afghan security forces at the current 352,000 through 2018, rather than reducing the support to a level of 230,000, as previously planned, is the right thing to do. it sends an important signal of our continued commitment to a safe and secure afghanistan and make it feasible for us to have a smaller u.s. and coalition presence after 2014. the greatest challenge to afghanistan's security is not the taliban, but the pakistan- based sanctuaries for militant extremists, launching cross border attacks into afghanistan. pakistan has said it supports a stable and secure afghanistan. but its actions belie its words. the u.s.-pakistan relationship will not be normalized so long as those extremists safe havens exist on pakistani territory. another large challenge to a stable afghanistan is th
effectiveness rate went up from 68% to 82%. if you conclude the defense money that senator rubio put in the bill, that is $4.5 billion. most experts think you will get a higher effective rate. we are not just giving new responsibilities. we are giving them new personnel, new equipment, things like that. with that, i want to thank my colleagues for staying. i think my witnesses. it has been a long day. i want to thank the chairman. this is been a aero, extensive hearing. all different points of view have been spoken about. secretary napolitano will be here. onepanelists will have week to answer your questions in writing, long before we go to mark up in early may. with that, the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the committee has announced another hearing on an immigration bill tomorrow. we will have better life for you in the morning starting at 9:30 eastern on c-span. we have lots more on the subject www.c-e for you at span.org. david leopold. he admits he has not read the entire immigration b
and the supreme court's rulings that have affirmed our individual right to self-defense and our individual right for freedom? and i believe i actually have an answer that the senate could coalesce around. you know, as i talk to the most avid gun owners in oklahoma, many who are opposing me trying to reach a compromise, the one question that they agree with me on is, if you could know as a gun owner, or whoever you are, if you have a gun and you're going to sell, if you could know that you were not selling that gun to somebody on the "do not buy" list -- you see, we've got all these words going on right now. the background check. there's no background check with the nics list. it's a check against a prohibited -- people who are prohibited from buying. and it's not a very good list, by the way, because the states haven't complied, the courts haven't complied with people that have been convicted of felony. we have a lot of problems in temples the "do not buy" list. so you actually need to think of this list as cient of like the do not -- kind of like the do not fly list that we have. nobody wants t
first line of defense and we need to step up. we need to be responsible. we need to get this passed. >> if i may, one thing, and that is, when it became possible that we would not have assault weapon ban or we would not have a prohibition on future sales of high-capacity magazines, it made a background check bill even more important for it to be as strong as it could be. because not having successes in terms of reducing the number of guns that are out there. 300 million guns out there already. this background check is really very, very important, and i thank you again, you and the task force, for your leadership on it. you and representative king for your leadership on presenting this bill in the house, and we hope to be able to say by the time we meet again that we have an overwhelmingnmber of come in a bipartisan way, of cosponsors and that the american people have weighein, not only forcosponsorship but for a vote. thank you all very much. >> thank you. >> house speaker john boehner also held his weekly briefing shortly after this one. in which he also addressed monday's boston b
't help but question whether spending millions more in defense from united states to mexico is really the best use of dollars, but i do know that each one of us can write what we want, and each one of us may have a different bill. you have a bill that's a product of compromise, very difficult concessions by all involvedand i mentioned senator schumer and senator schumer, durbin, graham, and plate, but also, senator feinstein and senator senator menendez, senator rubio, senator bennett, all worked on this. so now we're bringing to the public this immigration hearing. it's the fourth we've had this year. we will hold hearings on monday. we will find time for secretary napolitano to come before the committee and discuss that with senator grassley. and so i hope these will give the public an opportunity to learn about it. certainly, every one of us loves to want to say we -- every one of us will have plenty of time to analyze this bill before we actually start marking it up in may. but just remember, immigration is an ongoing source of renewal of our spirit, our creativity, and also, our
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)